Need Advice - 2008 Mac Pro 8 core good deal?

[nanofrog]

Thats not how that works and you know it.


The 3.2 is a good machine, but so is the 2.8. Your decision depends on the size of your wallet IMHO. But really, I would get the 2.26 over it just because its newer.

With the current state of software, the 3.2GHz Harpertown is a faster chip than the Nehalem 2.26GHz (both systems being Octads). The faster clock works in it's favor on single threaded apps, and even on multi-threaded in many cases, as the architecture changes that give the Nehalem an improvement, aren't hit and sustained at max (I.e. cache and memory throuputs).

If the usage can in fact run the cache and memory throughput rates at or near the max, and in a sustained manner, then it may swing in the Nehalem's favor, but would need to be a faster clock to beat the 3.2GHz Harpertown. At least the 2.66GHz Nehalem to about match it, leaving the 2.93Ghz variant as the only one offered that could beat it consistently at such usage.

Unfortunately, given the Octad 2.93 pricing, it's substantially higher than what 3.2 Harpertown Octads can be had for. So to me, the 3.2's have a large advantage. Faster + cheaper. Hard combination to overlook.

 

[Tesselator]

With the current state of software, the 3.2GHz Harpertown is a faster chip than the Nehalem 2.26GHz (both systems being Octads). The faster clock works in it's favor on single threaded apps, and even on multi-threaded in many cases, as the architecture changes that give the Nehalem an improvement, aren't hit and sustained at max (I.e. cache and memory throuputs).

If the usage can in fact run the cache and memory throughput rates at or near the max, and in a sustained manner, then it may swing in the Nehalem's favor, but would need to be a faster clock to beat the 3.2GHz Harpertown. At least the 2.66GHz Nehalem to about match it, leaving the 2.93Ghz variant as the only one offered that could beat it consistently at such usage.

Unfortunately, given the Octad 2.93 pricing, it's substantially higher than what 3.2 Harpertown Octads can be had for. So to me, the 3.2's have a large advantage. Faster + cheaper. Hard combination to overlook.

And it won't ever happen either. I think it would be so funny to see the OS alone, a file copy, or a selection in PS taking 100% (or even 50%) of all cores. Hehehe... Nope, some operations are demanding, others are not. Most are not. And that's the way it's going to stay for the foreseeable future.

 

[nanofrog]

And it won't ever happen either. I think it would be so funny to see the OS alone, a file copy, or a selection in PS taking 100% (or even 50%) of all cores. Hehehe... Nope, some operations are demanding, others are not. Most are not. And that's the way it's going to stay for the foreseeable future.

For the most part, absolutely.

In a few rare cases, if the usage pattern can exceed what the FSB on the Harpertown machines can do, then the Nehalem will be faster. Server uses have the potential, not much else. Hence it's primary goal (from some of what I recall reading), as stated by Intel: Server performance.

 

[Tesselator]

For the most part, absolutely.

In a few rare cases, if the usage pattern can exceed what the FSB on the Harpertown machines can do, then the Nehalem will be faster. Server uses have the potential, not much else. Hence it's primary goal (from some of what I recall reading), as stated by Intel: Server performance.

True, true.

Yeah, I'd be totally wrong if MP's were used as servers. Heehe, I can just see a room full of a few hundred MacPros is a scientific cloud cluster serving up a few thousand virtual desktops.

 

[nanofrog]

True, true.

Yeah, I'd be totally wrong if MP's were used as servers. Heehe, I can just see a room full of a few hundred MacPros is a scientific cloud cluster serving up a few thousand virtual desktops.

Hmm... One x16 slot (assuming no 2nd graphics card for GPGPU work) for a single Fibre Channel card... vs. other models with 4 8x slots available.

Sure the MP's a better choice...Yeah right.